Mill View Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC where this key question has been rated. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The national GP Survey indicated that 75% of patients had a good overall experience of this GP practice. This is in line with national results at 75% average.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups. The service had held coffee mornings, and some weekends staff attended annual community events to share information about relevant healthcare campaigns.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The practice had access to interpreter services, and there was a hearing loop within the building. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. There was a range of leaflets within the surgery as well as notice boards and a television monitor covering a wide range of topics including modern slavery, hate crime information and vaccine information.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had not received any formal complaints within the last 12 months; however, informal (verbal) complaints had been recorded on their clinical system, due to the way it was being recorded it was difficult to undertake any trend analysis and we had not seen any evidence of analysis being undertaken either as they had not been transferred to the complaints register as stated in their complaint policy on their website. Therefore, we were unable to establish if there was appropriate learning from complaints.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) had one representative who attended meetings with a group of surgeries in Burton, However, there was no group or meetings held within the practice itself. Management told us they were trying to refresh their local PPG and had highlighted several new members.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The National GP Patient Survey data showed that 75% of patients found it easy to contact this service by phone (national average 53%) and 84% of patients rated helpfulness of reception at the practice compared to the national average of 83%. Patients told us that they could get same day appointments when they needed them and could always make an appointment. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The service offered an open access surgery in the mornings where priority was given to children or people with learning disabilities with a clinical need.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including Do Not Attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, which were appropriately recorded and shared with other services when necessary.